Liz Miller, the commissioner of the Department of Public Service, left, talks with Alex MacLean, the governor's special assistant. File photo by Josh Larkin
Vermonters used nearly three times as much energy in 2009 as they did in 1960, according to research from the Department of Public Service. In 1960, Vermont households and businesses consumed about 62 billion BTUs, or British Thermal Units, in electricity, heating fuel and transportation fuel. Nearly four decades later, Vermonters use 170 billion BTUs a year on average – despite the state’s efficiency efforts and worries about the impact of the state’s fossil fuel emissions to the greenhouse gases warming the Earth.
The biggest drivers of energy consumption over the last 40 years are transportation (we drive twice as much) and electricity (we use double the amount of power).
Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, an early proponent of state-led initiatives to curb greenhouse gases, has made energy efficiency and renewables the cornerstones of his energy policy. In January, Shumlin announced that he would ask the Department of Public Service to develop a comprehensive energy plan that would incorporate these objectives by Oct. 15.
Shumlin has said the state can’t move ahead with new projects – such as the proposed biomass electricity plants in Fair Haven and Pownal – until it has a blueprint for energy in place. (He has, however, openly endorsed other controversial projects, such as a proposed natural gas pipeline in Addison County and the Kingdom County Wind proposal in Lowell.)
The planning process is now under way – though it began before Shumlin took office. The department produced a draft plan midway through Gov. James Douglas’ eight-year tenure in office that was never finalized. The Douglas administration adopted it in 2008 over the objections of the Legislature. (The last time a comprehensive plan was formally approved was in 1998.)
Under the proposal, the state would reduce heating fuel consumption 6 percent by 2017, and lower transportation carbon “intensity” 10 percent by 2020.
Liz Miller, the new commissioner of the department, dusted off the 2008 draft plan last month, and she has been shopping it around at public hearings and taking testimony from Vermonters over the last few weeks.
Miller and director of planning, Dave Lamont, gave a presentation at one such gathering last Wednesday, held by the Senate Natural Resources Committee. About 100 Vermonters packed Room 11, the largest hearing room in the Statehouse – though many of the attendees weren’t there to hear about the plan – they came to protest the Kingdom Community Wind project in Lowell.
In nearly two hours of citizen testimony, the preponderance of witnesses explicitly or obliquely criticized commercial wind projects on Vermont ridgelines in general or the Lowell project in particular. Some of the comments merely named hydro and solar as desirable renewables, while omitting wind, while others called for small-scale wind projects rather than ridgetop wind farms.
Miller said the plan would not address projects already in the political process, such as the Kingdom Community Wind project in Lowell or whether to close Vermont Yankee in 2012.
Miller and Lamont explained that the more than 200-page plan, which addresses transportation, energy efficiency, land use, biomass and natural gas, would be revised to include an update of the state electricity plan.
No one disputed the importance of reducing Vermont’s emissions of greenhouse gases and dependence on non-renewable energy sources. Patrick Flood, deputy secretary of the Agency of Human Services and a resident of Woodbury, highlighted the “urgency” of using less energy and developing renewable energy sources.
“Climate change is not only real, it’s coming at us faster than most people realize,” Flood said. “The world we’re leaving to our children is going to be a hostile world. We’re looking at a world that we cannot predict today. What do we think the world will be like when every hurricane is a Katrina? There needs to be an imperative to move quickly, and I haven’t heard that yet.”
At the Agency of Human Services, Flood said he has worked on important issues, such as health care, child abuse, hunger, poverty, and human rights. All of those social problems pale in comparison, he said, with the potential impact of climate change on Vermonters’ lives. He called for enforceable targets for carbon reduction.
“Every single one of those issues will be worse, will be intractable, if we don’t deal with climate change,” Flood said.
Waitsfield architect Bill Maclay described buildings he has designed in Vermont that had netted zero or nearly zero energy use over the year. Maclay called for energy per square foot efficiency targets for new buildings. He also asked the department to assess the state’s existing renewable resources and to allocate solar, wind, and wood resources in a way that makes sense.
While the Legislature has no formal role in the drafting the energy plan, lawmakers will pay close attention as it develops, according to Sen. Ginny Lyons, chair of Natural Resources and Energy Committee.
Miller said the department will incorporate the Legislature’s goals for the energy sector in the state plan, and she pledged that the new energy blueprint for the state would, like the 1998 plan, set a clear direction for the state.
The 1998 document, “Fueling Vermont’s Future,” was prescriptive. The plan detailed action steps that would put Vermont in the forefront of sound energy use “if bold new policies, researched, modeled, and recommended in this Plan, were implemented. Substantial policy changes are needed now to move Vermont expeditiously toward the state’s energy and environmental goals.”
In contrast, the 2008 draft plan is less explicit. Riley Allen, who was planning director at the Department of Public Service at the time, described the thinking behind the document: “In those areas where we as a Department of Public Service have some control over timelines, we try to provide specificity about the pace. For those areas that are outside our direct sphere of influence, we are identifying the policy and direction, and the timing is really a matter for the General Assembly, for the administration, and other agencies, and the public at large to help direct.”
Miller said a draft of the new plan will be available this summer.
Information on the process and copies of the 2008 draft plan and the 1998 plan are available at
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/pub/state-plans/CEP_2011_Working_Draft_3-14-11.pdf
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/pub/state-plans-compenergy.html
Read about the state’s plans for renewables:
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/energy/CEP_renewables_stakeholder%20meeting_Andy%20Perchlik.pdf
Read about the state’s energy efficiency objectives:
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/energy/CEP%20Stakeholder%20Mtg_Energy%20Efficiency_TJ%20Poor.pdf
Editor’s note: Anne Galloway contributed to this report.
Permalink |
Is it really just that we drive twice as much and have doubled the amount of electricity we use? Doesn’t the fact that we added 230,000 people (almost a 60% increase) to Vermont’s population during this period have something to do with this increase?
Can we really decrease greenhouse gas emissions while adding three million people to the U.S. population each year?
Permalink |
Why not do like NJ did in the article below?http://www.greentechnolog.com/2010/06/solar_panels_blanket_nj_towns_on_utility_poles.html
We have thousands of poles that stand in the sun all day long. It would be easy to place these solar panels on the poles and it would be good jobs for people to put them up and connect them to the grid.
Permalink |
George,
The real issue is energy intensity, Btu/$ of state gross product; it has to be declining as population and SGP increase.
Houses, apartment buildings and other buildings should be built to the PASSIVHAUS standard developed in Germany. The result is zero-energy or near-zero-energy buildings.
After some decades of experience, the cost of building to the Passivhaus standard is now only an additional 5% to 7%. Passivhaus builds the walls and roof as much as possible in the factory, ships them to the site, and has a certified builder erect and finish the house. The insulation, plumbing, wiring, etc., are pre-installed as much as possible. Connections are made in the field. There are over 30 German suppliers of Passivhaus specified walls, roofs, windows, doors, heat exchangers, duct systems, etc. They are a part of Germany’s Efficient Buildings industry that provides market-tested products and services.
Design Criteria:
- Less than 15 kWh/sq m/yr, or 4,746 Btu/sq ft/yr for space heating
- Less than 15 kWh/sq m/yr, or 4,746 Btu/sq ft/yr for space cooling
- Less than 42 kWh/sq m/yr, or 13,289 Btu/sq ft/yr for space heating and cooling, hot water, electricity
- Less than 120 kWh/sq m/yr, or 37,969 Btu/sq ft/yr as primary energy. This standard requires the use of energy efficient electrical appliances, heating and cooling systems, etc.
- Insulation minimum for concrete basement or slab R-40, walls R-40 and roof R-60
- Windows are fiberglass-frame, triple-pane, argon or krypton-filled, low-e, U = 0.14 or less
- ACH = 0.6 or less @ 50 Pa below atmospheric pressure, as measured in a standard blower door test. This requirement is about 12 times more strict than for the 2006 and 2009 IECC Reference Homes
- Energy recovery ventilator, at least 80% efficient, to provide a constant, balanced fresh air supply via a duct system
- Electric heater, a maximum of 10 W/sq m, or 0.93 W/sq ft (effectively the capacity of a hairdryer), in the duct system to provide auxiliary heat on very cold days
- HEPA filter (optional) to remove particulate 1 micron or larger, i.e., germs, dander, viruses, bacteria, spores, air pollutants, etc.
Permalink |
Carl cannot possibly comment accurately on “why”nearly 100 people packed Room 11 unless he interviewed a significant number and asked that very question. Since he did not mention any such survey in the above article I have to conclude he was just reaching in the air for a quotable quote. Too bad. There were people from the Mad River Valley, the NEK, the Rutland area and other locations across the state and most spoke eloquently about the need for effective energy planning. Of course they used Lowell and other places as examples of bad decision-making. That’s precisely what’s happening.
It reminds me of the surgeon who’s about to remove a gangrenous right leg when someone from the medical lab bursts into the operating room and informs the surgeon that the lab got it wrong. “The leg is healthy,” says the lab tech.
“Too bad says the doctor, We have already made the decision. The leg has to go.”
We were there to point out the cruel truth of the above.
Steve Wright,
Craftsbury
Permalink |
Here’s hoping the electricity portion of the plan focuses on reliability, cost and quality. These are critical criteria for any large commercial/industrial user (IBM frequently recites this truism for anyone willing to listen).
Careful planners will not be hijacked by environmental alarmists who often fail to display the same concern for employers and our economy as for carbon emissions.
Permalink |
To George’s comment. We can and we must. (We may want to think again about adding 3 million people every year). For about the cost of a very nice car, or a kitchen remodeling, we have reduced our use of fuel oil from 1200 gallons to about 300gal (by using 2 tons of wood pellets – that are at least renewable). We have gone from using over 5000 kWh/year to becoming a net producer of electricity. With a small expansion of our solar hot water system we hope to reduce the use of fuel oil to about 150 gal/year and perhaps someday that will be bio=diesel). If anyone produces (at a reasonable cost) a low powered, lightweight, plug=in hybrid that gets 70mpg on long trips and is totally electric for at least 100mi we could cut the 1000gal of gasoline we use in half and use the excess electricity we produce. It is a matter of priorities and will.
Permalink |
Environmental concerns about warming has blinded most of the major enviro groups here in VT to the environmental damage that will be caused by big wind. Mitigation of human activities driving warming is important, but what ever we do will not reverse it for at least 50 years. Adaptation efforts can make a difference right now. Reducing wildlife connectivity, impacting head water streams and clear cutting our ridges hurts adaptation and hurts us all immediately. The Lowell project is a great lesson on why planning is important and long overdue.
I attended the hearing and testified for planning and for looking at effects on wildlife as an excellent measure of our efforts to make our environment better. Shame on the environmental groups that have turned a blind eye to the negative industrial sized projects moving forward right now to the detriment of us all.
The message I took away from the hearings was we have a very well informed and thoughtful group of citizens that want to help. They also expressed broad agreement that VT should lead the way in small scale, local energy development and energy conservation. The final speakers called for a moratorium on all industrial scale energy development in VT until this plan is compleated. I agree!
I live in Johnson and am a member of out Conservation Commission.
Permalink |
Carl,
At the beginning of this article you’ve written, “we drive twice as much,” and “we use double the amount of power.” Could you clarify? Is this double per capita, or double in absolute terms? How much of this (consumption) is domestic? How much is business? Municipal? Is the increase in energy consumption concentrated in any given sector or group of sectors like in road maintenance or agriculture–or is the increase in fuel consumption pretty even across all users?
Can you provide a few details like average miles driven per commuter, and average energy conserved per commuter for commuting? Are we commuting more and burning more per driver–or are we burning less per driver, but more as a population?
Knowing these might help direct our attention to what needs the most immediate and concentrated conservation efforts.
Thanks.
Permalink |
I meant to ask about “average energy CONSUMED per commuter…”
Sorry for the confusion.
Permalink |
Steve,
The link in the first paragraph provides the source.
Permalink |
All this comment about new houses. The problem is the old, big houses. Such as mine. Built in 1850 and remodeled over the years. Soaks up energy even though I have switched to instant return gas for hot water, insulated the walls in the basement and reinsulated the attic, put down rugs, installed new windows, reinsulated the old part of the house, bought a new woodstove for more efficiency. I need a new furnace and have to look into an alternative to fuel oil. I sleep cold and keep the therometer low. Sick of sleeping with socks on!
What I am saying is that Vermont is filled with old frame houses and the owners need help. More attention should be given to lowering the heat cost of these homes and perhaps subsidizing the owners. Or paying them to burn them down!
Permalink |
Peter Miller,
When fuel oil, etc., goes to $5/gal, some households will abandon their houses and move in with friends and relatives, or a shelter in winter. When it goes to $7/gal in a few years you will see more of it.
Having these household pay an EFFICIENCY VERMONT and CEDF surcharge on their electric bills to subsidize PV solar systems for the top 5% of households is a travesty, a cruel joke, perpetrated by the Democrats in the legislature.
Effective CO2 emission reduction policy requires that all households eagerly participate. Current subsidies for electric vehicles, residential wind, PV solar and geothermal systems benefit mostly the top 5% of households that pay enough taxes to take advantage of the renewables tax credits, while all other households are required to pay for them by means of fees and taxes or higher electric rates; the net effect is much cynicism and little CO2 reduction. Improved energy efficiency policy will provide much greater opportunities to many more households to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions.
Energy efficiency will have a much bigger role in the near future, as energy system analysts come to realize that tens of trillions of dollars will be required to reduce CO2 from all sources and that energy efficiency will reduce CO2 at a lesser cost and more effectively. Every household can participate.
Energy efficiency projects:
- will make the US more competitive, increase exports and reduce the trade balance.
- usually have simple payback periods of 6 months to 5 years.
- reduce the need for expensive and highly visible transmission and distribution systems.
- reduce two to five times the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and create two to three times more jobs than renewables per dollar invested; no studies, research, demonstration and pilot plants will be required.
- have minimal or no pollution, are invisible and quiet, something people really like.
- are by far the cleanest energy development anyone can engage in; they often are quick, cheap and easy.
- have a capacity factor = 1.0 and are available 24/7/365.
- use materials, such as for taping, sealing, caulking, insulation, windows, doors, refrigerators, water heaters, furnaces, fans, air conditioners, etc., that are almost entirely made in the US. They represent about 30% of a project cost, the rest is mostly labor. About 70% of the materials cost of expensive renewables, such as PV solar, is imported (panels from China, inverters from Germany), the rest of the materials cost is miscellaneous electrical items and brackets.
- will quickly reduce CO2 at the lowest cost per dollar invested AND make the economy more efficient in many areas which will raise living standards, or prevent them from falling further.
- if done before renewables, will reduce the future capacities and capital costs of renewables.